SD v moved 2025 Crim 122
SD v moved [2025] Crim 122
| Date of judgment | 30th November 2025 |
| Judge | Judge Terak |
| Charges |
|
| Verdict |
|
| Sentence | Ban of a Duration of 42 Months and a fine of 1000 tau |
| Applicable persuasive precedent |
|
JUDGMENT by Judge Terak
Introductory Comments
[0] The Defence plead guilty in the Pre-Trial resulting in a split of the Verdict. Accordingly this Verdict shall be split into a Pre-Trial and a Trial Section.
Introduction to the Charges Pleaded to in the Pre-Trial
[1] The State charged the defendant with 4 violations of Article 43, Subdivision 1 Criminal Code 2020 by failing to declare the accounts “Opersup”, “Clinescope”, “Candythegreat” and “NQR” to the Voter Registry. The Attorney General at parts of the Trial Proceedings was part of the Prosecution, thus at least concludently gave consent to the charges as per Art. 43 §1 Criminal Code. Further the State charged 3 violations of Article 37a Criminal Code with the above listed accounts.
[2] In Pre-Trial, the Defence pleaded guilty to these charges. The defence did plead non-guilty to the further charges by the state in the Pre-Trial, which will be ruled on at a later point in time.
On trial structure
[3] As a plea of guilty in Pre-Trial makes it necessary to sentence the defendant in Pre-Trial (Art. 7 §3.5. CPA) the different chargers and their relevant verdicts and sentences need to be separated. Thus this court has to rule on the charges plead guilty first, then continue the Trial Proceedings into the full Trial.
Verdict
[4] The defence has pleaded guilty to the charges enumerated above. They are thus found to be guilty.
Sentence
[5] According to Art. 7 §3.5 in connection with §4 Criminal Code the Defence motioned for mitigation and provided mitigating factors. The state opted not to participate in the mitigation step.
[6] The Court is taking into consideration the guilty plea of the party as well as the message provided by defence sent by the defendant upon leaving the server. Further the Court is considering the following: the evidence provided by the parties.
[7] The following guiding principles of the Sentencing Act are applied and weighed in the following ways:
- [7.1] Severity of the Offence: The defendant created not a single alternate account or registered only a single account. Instead multiple accounts where created and registered. In applications to the Voter Registration using each other as references sometimes. This hints at a highly organised nature to the entire operation. The multiple accounts put the defender in a position in which they had the potential to significantly sway elections, if not even get chosen users elected to positions of power directly if they had wished so. Thus they posed a grave danger to the democratic processes of SimDemocracy.
- [7.2] Social Harm caused: The defendant themselves in their farwell message admitted that they caused extreme harm to some users, causing massive hate as a reaction. The court has to see this as an admission of non-negligable social harm, despite the defences submission that the defendant having not voted, no actual harm was caused. The Court does see social harm caused.
- [7.3] Intent: Creating a network of different accounts, registering, using each other as references, and not hinting anywhere at them being connected, demonstrates a high degree of intention. This is further supported by the large timescale over which the accounts were slowly introduced to SimDemocracy. The Intent had to have been high.
- [7.4] The need for general deterrence: SimDemocracy survives by the interaction of unique users sharing ideas and creating a shared space. Single Users abusing the trust inherent to the system to gain an advantage and tilt the balance is a high and present danger which necessitates deterrence to prevent replication of this conduct.
- [7.5] While considering these factors the court does not assume guilt or innocence for any other charges brought against the defendant. They will be treated as non-existent in considering the factors presented to ensure no tilting in violation of in dubio pro reo.
[8] Weighing all factors listed above the Court arrives at the following conclusion. For each count of Fraudulent Voter Registration a ban of 6 Months. For each count of Failure to Declare an alternate account 3 Months. They are to be executed consecutively, totalling a ban of 30 Months.
[9] Moved is to be banned from SimDemocracy for a duration of 30 Months from SimDemocracy. Given Alternate accounts are an extension of the original person (In re Candidacy of Alien Users in the 2nd Parliamentary Election [2020] SDSC 19 [7]), this applies to all alternate accounts of moved as well. This ban is to be executed throughout all territories of SimDemocracy. This ban is to executed upon the conclusion of the Trial.
Introduction to the Trial
[10] The State charged moved with 3 charges of Fraudulent Voter Registration, 4 charges of Failure to Declare an alternate account and 2 charges of Perjury through Abuse of Alternate Accounts.
[11] The defence later pled guilty to the charge of Perjury through Abuse of Alternate Accounts.
[12] The Prosecution, presenting their case, highlighted the connected nature of the crimes and the pattern established by the usage of the accounts, especially in relation to the potential impact on elections.
[13] The Defence urged the court to not pay attention to scare tactics deployed by the state in its arguments. Further the defence pledged to disprove the states points one by one.
Arguments
[14] The state argued the defendant showcased a deliberate attack upon the legal order of SimDemocracy.
[15] As in relation to perjury (through alternate accounts), the state presented that the defendant made statements to the Voter Registry, a legally recognized body. The state alleges that the statement made to the Voter Registry was false and thus an abuse.
[16] As in relation to usage of an unlawful alternate account the state posed that the accounts were used to lead credence to each other, seek registration and operated as unique identities. As far as intent is concerned, the patter, timing and the defendants own admissions were pointed out to satisfy the mens rea of the crime.
[17] As in relation to the election fraud through alternate accounts charges the state posed, that the mere act of registering the accounts had the potential to influence elections. The questions if the defendant ultimately voted should be immaterial for the actual charges and the fact multiple alternate accounts were used as proof of the election fraud committed.
[18] As supporting arguments the state provided that in In re Candidacy of Alien Users [2020] SDSC 19 [7] it was ruled that alternate accounts are extensions of the person operating them. The “sustained pattern” demonstrated by the accused are to be seen as mens rea and public harm were to be seen in that the electoral system of SimDemocracy having its trust eroded.
[19] As in relation to the charge of unlawful use of alternate accounts the defence countered that the mere possession of an alternate account alone is not a crime and that multiple users in SimDemocracy own alternate accounts. They highlight that the prosecution constructed evasion of the rules as being enough to satisfy the malicious intent requirement.
[20] As in relation to the charge of election fraud the defence points out that only casting a vote constitutes an act that can constitute election fraud and that the state had not proven such had occurred.
Evidentiary Considerations as put forth from the parties
[21] Special highlight here should be placed on Exhibit 6, in which the defendant admitted to operating the Accounts, further backed up by Exhibit 7. The defence rejected the evidence put forth by the state as irrelevant.
Considerations
[22] Given the defence pled guilty to perjury no further considerations will be made to this matter.
[23] Firstly, regarding Election Fraud through alternate accounts per Article 37 in connection with Art. 16 of the Criminal Code. The law requires the following to be proved to constitute the crime: A person needs to interfere in an election by influencing the election results by either using alternate accounts or producing illegitimate votes that are then cast illegally, to influence the outcome of an election. For further qualification, the action (Art. 16 Criminal Code) could have been committed with alternative accounts.
[24] Evidence 5 includes notice that at the time of the search warrant at least moved and NQR were registered to vote and the other accounts were stricken from the registry. As admitted by the defendant, NQR is an alternative account of moved ([2], Exhibit 13). Thus an two accounts were registered to vote at the same time by the same user. The fact both were registered is unquestionable as their status was confirmed by the Registry. The fact all accounts in question belonged to the same user is unquestioned as by the defendants own admissions and submissions demonstrate such and no indication to the opposite has been made, rather the defence in the course of the judicial proceedings has admitted to the operation of the accounts.
[25] It now remains questionable if moved indeed influenced an election through the amounts of accounts he operated with the goal of influencing the outcome of an election. Firstly it seems not correct to see a crime committed by the use of alt accounts as counting separately for each alt account. Each account is instead an extension of the same person(In re Candidacy of Alien Users in the 2nd Parliamentary Election [2020] SDSC 19 [7]), thus the crime could only be committed once. A qualification with Art. 16 is not possible.
- [25.1] The evidence did not include any evidence the accounts in question ever voted. Neither was part of the evidence any party membership or them having taken part in the political discourse of SimDemocracy or them ever holding or running for any office. The sheer amount of accounts operated could have impacted the political discussions in SimDemocracy in a way that shaped elections though.
[26] There would have needed to be an intend to influence an election. Intent can express themselves in different ways. A person may with full will to see an end materialised decide to take an action, knowing the end can be materialised. Or a person can, fully knowing a certain action will create a certain consequence, decide to execute that action. Between these two direct forms of direct intent (Dolus Directus) exists another form, recklessness to the effect of an action in which a person has sufficient knowledge that an action might have a consequence but still decides to execute the action, paying no mind to the effect materialising or accepting it as an acceptable side effect of another end being achieved (Dolus Eventualis). Any of these three forms of intent would constitute intent.
[27] There might have been at least dolus eventualis that the activity of a great amount of accounts can shape political discourse, but no evidence to that end was submitted besides the registration of voters. The amount of voters registered could in theory influence the Legislature when informing their decisions but any considerations to this end seem to stretch the evidence and the law beyond the permissible degree.
[28] The question if opersup and clientscope were successfully registered as accounts to vote can not even be determined by the evidence provided to the court. The evidence proves that the accounts at least tried to register though.
[29] Given there is no evidence of the accounts actually attempting to influence an election, let alone multiple, I can only find that moved does not fulfill the requirements for Art. 37 Criminal Code and have reasonable doubt as to their guilt for this charge therefore.
[30] Secondly, regarding Unlawful use of Alternate Accounts. The law requires a person to have possessed alternate accounts in the SimDemocracy Discord Server with malicious intend. Malicious Intent is present, if the person acted to evade rule. The mere presence of an alternate account carries the presumption of malicious intent which needs to be rebutted.
[31] The evidence (Evidence 1) provides that the Discord accounts opersup, clinescope, candythegreat and notquitereal did join on the 17th of March, 11th of May, 16th of May and the 16th of May again respectively. Evidence 13 shows that moved registered the accounts as alt accounts on the 30th of July. Taking judicial notice of the passage of time I find that the 30th of July is more than 72 Hours after each of the Accounts joined.
[32] All named accounts are alternate accounts of moved as demonstrated through admission and the defendants own statements (see above). moved’s alts were present in SimDemocracy
[33] Evasion of rules has to include all statutory rules. Namely the laws regulating the registration of alt accounts. An account that is properly declared to be an alternate account is not in evasion of the rules as it was clearly marked as an alternate account in accordance with the rules. An account registered as alt account this is a rebuttal of the presumption of malicious intent. For this to apply though, the account needs to be registered immediately after joining or even before joining. Any prolonged period of presence is an evasion of the rules themselves. The fair use of Alternate accounts act was passed into law on May the 25th. The alt accounts were registered on the 30th of July. Thus the accounts were not registered immediately. The defence here fails to convince with their arguments. While other users posses alt accounts these are either registered in accordance with the law or fall within the statutory defences for this crime. Declearing an alt account is one of these defence. The declaration in this case was only done after the operation of the alt accounts had already been exposed and thus can no longer apply. The reasonable timespan had elapsed by then.
[34] The requirements for Art. 23a Criminal Code was fulfilled.
Verdict
[34] I find the defendant guilty of 3 charges of Fraudulent Voter Registration (Art. 37a Criminal Code 2020), 4 charges of Failure to Declare an alternate account (Art. 43 Criminal Code 2020), 2 charges of Perjury through Abuse of Alternate Accounts (Art. 19, 16 Criminal Code 2020) and 3 Charges of Unlawful Use of Alternate Accounts (Art. 23a Criminal Code 2020).
Sentencing
[35] The following factors were submitted by the party and considered by the Court in accordance with the sentencing act. No framework was applied.
[36] The sentence for Fraudulent Voter Registration and Failure to declare an Alternate Account as listed in the considerations and sentencing for the Pre-Trial is upheld.
[37] The state submitted the following aggravating factors for the further charges.
- [37.1] The defendants' behaviour spanning multiple months. Indicating a planned nature and including efforts to avoid detection by control of style and personality of each account.
- [37.2] A clear pattern of criminal behaviour as established through the number of crimes commited.
[38] The defence submitted the following mitigating factors for the further charges.
- [38.1] A guilty plea.
- [38.2] An apology was offered on the 04 of September 2025.
- [38.3] Past behavior of moved, including after their alt discovery.
[39] The state included an argument against the defence that the apology and the voluntary reveal of the nature of the alt accounts occurred only after the legal proceedings had already been initiated and thus should be found to be less sincere.
[40] For determination the principles as outlined in [7.1]-[7.4] still apply to the other crimes and are considered such.
[41] For Perjury: Given the organised nature behind the crime committed in this case a ban of a duration of 45 days for each count in addition to a monetary penalty of 500 Tau for each count shall be paid towards the treasury.
[42] For Unlawful use of an Alternate Account a ban of 3 Months for each count shall be served.
[43] Given all crimes relate to the same underlying conduct are merely covers particular expressions of the same strategic and criminal conduct, the bans shall be served consecutively to properly express and consider the planned criminal strategy by moved.
[44] In total I sentence moved to be banned for a duration of 42 Months from all territories of SimDemocracy and on all accounts, and a fine of 1000 tau to be benefit of the State of SimDemocracy shall be paid.